Re: alignment faults in 3.6

2012-10-09 Thread Mans Rullgard
On 9 October 2012 15:05, Scott Bambrough wrote: > On 12-10-05 12:01 PM, Rob Herring wrote: >> Here's a testcase. Compiled on ubuntu precise with >> "arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc -O2 -marm -march=armv7-a test.c". >> >> typedef unsigned short u16; >> typedef unsigned short __sum16; >> typedef unsigned in

Re: alignment faults in 3.6

2012-10-09 Thread Scott Bambrough
On 12-10-05 12:01 PM, Rob Herring wrote: On 10/05/2012 08:51 AM, Mikael Pettersson wrote: Rob Herring writes: > On 10/05/2012 03:24 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 09:20:56AM +0100, Mans Rullgard wrote: > >> On 5 October 2012 08:12, Russell King - ARM Linux

Re: alignment faults in 3.6

2012-10-06 Thread Mikael Pettersson
Rob Herring writes: > On 10/05/2012 08:51 AM, Mikael Pettersson wrote: > > Rob Herring writes: > > > On 10/05/2012 03:24 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > > On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 09:20:56AM +0100, Mans Rullgard wrote: > > > >> On 5 October 2012 08:12, Russell King - ARM Linux > >

Re: alignment faults in 3.6

2012-10-06 Thread Russell King - ARM Linux
On Sat, Oct 06, 2012 at 05:04:33PM +0100, Mans Rullgard wrote: > On 5 October 2012 23:42, Russell King - ARM Linux > wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 11:37:40PM +0100, Mans Rullgard wrote: > >> The problem is the (__be32 *) casts. This is a normal pointer to a 32-bit, > >> which is assumed to b

Re: alignment faults in 3.6

2012-10-06 Thread Nicolas Pitre
On Sat, 6 Oct 2012, Mans Rullgard wrote: > On 5 October 2012 23:42, Russell King - ARM Linux > wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 11:37:40PM +0100, Mans Rullgard wrote: > >> The problem is the (__be32 *) casts. This is a normal pointer to a 32-bit, > >> which is assumed to be aligned, and the ca

Re: alignment faults in 3.6

2012-10-06 Thread Mans Rullgard
On 5 October 2012 23:42, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 11:37:40PM +0100, Mans Rullgard wrote: >> The problem is the (__be32 *) casts. This is a normal pointer to a 32-bit, >> which is assumed to be aligned, and the cast overrides the packed attribute >> from the struct

Re: alignment faults in 3.6

2012-10-05 Thread Nicolas Pitre
On Fri, 5 Oct 2012, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 11:37:40PM +0100, Mans Rullgard wrote: > > The problem is the (__be32 *) casts. This is a normal pointer to a 32-bit, > > which is assumed to be aligned, and the cast overrides the packed attribute > > from the struct.

Re: alignment faults in 3.6

2012-10-05 Thread Russell King - ARM Linux
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 11:37:40PM +0100, Mans Rullgard wrote: > The problem is the (__be32 *) casts. This is a normal pointer to a 32-bit, > which is assumed to be aligned, and the cast overrides the packed attribute > from the struct. Dereferencing these cast expressions must be done with the >

Re: alignment faults in 3.6

2012-10-05 Thread Mans Rullgard
On 5 October 2012 17:01, Rob Herring wrote: > Here's a testcase. Compiled on ubuntu precise with > "arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc -O2 -marm -march=armv7-a test.c". > > typedef unsigned short u16; > typedef unsigned short __sum16; > typedef unsigned int __u32; > typedef unsigned char __u8; > typedef __u3

Re: alignment faults in 3.6

2012-10-05 Thread Rob Herring
On 10/05/2012 09:05 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 07:24:44AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: >> On 10/05/2012 03:24 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >>> Does it matter? I'm just relaying the argument against adding __packed >>> which was used before we were forced (by

Re: alignment faults in 3.6

2012-10-05 Thread Rob Herring
On 10/05/2012 08:51 AM, Mikael Pettersson wrote: > Rob Herring writes: > > On 10/05/2012 03:24 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 09:20:56AM +0100, Mans Rullgard wrote: > > >> On 5 October 2012 08:12, Russell King - ARM Linux > > >> wrote: > > >>> On Fri, Oct 05

Re: alignment faults in 3.6

2012-10-05 Thread Rob Herring
On 10/04/2012 07:58 PM, Michael Hope wrote: > On 5 October 2012 12:10, Rob Herring wrote: >> I've been scratching my head with a "scheduling while atomic" bug I >> started seeing on 3.6. I can easily reproduce this problem when doing a >> wget on my system. It ultimately seems to be a combination

Re: alignment faults in 3.6

2012-10-05 Thread Russell King - ARM Linux
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 07:24:44AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > On 10/05/2012 03:24 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > Does it matter? I'm just relaying the argument against adding __packed > > which was used before we were forced (by the networking folk) to implement > > the alignment fault h

Re: alignment faults in 3.6

2012-10-05 Thread Mikael Pettersson
Rob Herring writes: > On 10/05/2012 03:24 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 09:20:56AM +0100, Mans Rullgard wrote: > >> On 5 October 2012 08:12, Russell King - ARM Linux > >> wrote: > >>> On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 03:25:16AM +0100, Mans Rullgard wrote: > On 5

Re: alignment faults in 3.6

2012-10-05 Thread Rob Herring
On 10/05/2012 03:24 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 09:20:56AM +0100, Mans Rullgard wrote: >> On 5 October 2012 08:12, Russell King - ARM Linux >> wrote: >>> On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 03:25:16AM +0100, Mans Rullgard wrote: On 5 October 2012 02:56, Rob Herring wrot

Re: alignment faults in 3.6

2012-10-05 Thread Mikael Pettersson
Mans Rullgard writes: > On 5 October 2012 09:33, Russell King - ARM Linux > wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 09:33:04AM +0100, Mans Rullgard wrote: > >> On 5 October 2012 09:24, Russell King - ARM Linux > >> wrote: > >> > On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 09:20:56AM +0100, Mans Rullgard wrote: > >

Re: alignment faults in 3.6

2012-10-05 Thread Khem Raj
On Oct 4, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > On 10/04/2012 09:25 PM, Mans Rullgard wrote: >> On 5 October 2012 02:56, Rob Herring wrote: >>> On 10/04/2012 08:26 PM, Mans Rullgard wrote: On 5 October 2012 01:58, Michael Hope wrote: > On 5 October 2012 12:10, Rob Herring wrote: >>>

Re: alignment faults in 3.6

2012-10-05 Thread Rob Herring
On 10/04/2012 09:25 PM, Mans Rullgard wrote: > On 5 October 2012 02:56, Rob Herring wrote: >> On 10/04/2012 08:26 PM, Mans Rullgard wrote: >>> On 5 October 2012 01:58, Michael Hope wrote: On 5 October 2012 12:10, Rob Herring wrote: > I've been scratching my head with a "scheduling while

Re: alignment faults in 3.6

2012-10-05 Thread Russell King - ARM Linux
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 09:37:38AM +0100, Mans Rullgard wrote: > On 5 October 2012 09:33, Russell King - ARM Linux > wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 09:33:04AM +0100, Mans Rullgard wrote: > >> On 5 October 2012 09:24, Russell King - ARM Linux > >> wrote: > >> > On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 09:20:56

Re: alignment faults in 3.6

2012-10-05 Thread Mans Rullgard
On 5 October 2012 09:33, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 09:33:04AM +0100, Mans Rullgard wrote: >> On 5 October 2012 09:24, Russell King - ARM Linux >> wrote: >> > On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 09:20:56AM +0100, Mans Rullgard wrote: >> >> On 5 October 2012 08:12, Russell King

Re: alignment faults in 3.6

2012-10-05 Thread Russell King - ARM Linux
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 09:33:04AM +0100, Mans Rullgard wrote: > On 5 October 2012 09:24, Russell King - ARM Linux > wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 09:20:56AM +0100, Mans Rullgard wrote: > >> On 5 October 2012 08:12, Russell King - ARM Linux > >> wrote: > >> > On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 03:25:16

Re: alignment faults in 3.6

2012-10-05 Thread Mans Rullgard
On 5 October 2012 09:24, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 09:20:56AM +0100, Mans Rullgard wrote: >> On 5 October 2012 08:12, Russell King - ARM Linux >> wrote: >> > On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 03:25:16AM +0100, Mans Rullgard wrote: >> >> On 5 October 2012 02:56, Rob Herring

Re: alignment faults in 3.6

2012-10-05 Thread Russell King - ARM Linux
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 09:20:56AM +0100, Mans Rullgard wrote: > On 5 October 2012 08:12, Russell King - ARM Linux > wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 03:25:16AM +0100, Mans Rullgard wrote: > >> On 5 October 2012 02:56, Rob Herring wrote: > >> > This struct is the IP header, so a struct ptr is j

Re: alignment faults in 3.6

2012-10-05 Thread Mans Rullgard
On 5 October 2012 08:12, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 03:25:16AM +0100, Mans Rullgard wrote: >> On 5 October 2012 02:56, Rob Herring wrote: >> > This struct is the IP header, so a struct ptr is just set to the >> > beginning of the received data. Since ethernet header

Re: alignment faults in 3.6

2012-10-05 Thread Russell King - ARM Linux
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 03:25:16AM +0100, Mans Rullgard wrote: > On 5 October 2012 02:56, Rob Herring wrote: > > This struct is the IP header, so a struct ptr is just set to the > > beginning of the received data. Since ethernet headers are 14 bytes, > > often the IP header is not aligned unless t

Re: alignment faults in 3.6

2012-10-04 Thread Mans Rullgard
On 5 October 2012 02:56, Rob Herring wrote: > On 10/04/2012 08:26 PM, Mans Rullgard wrote: >> On 5 October 2012 01:58, Michael Hope wrote: >>> On 5 October 2012 12:10, Rob Herring wrote: I've been scratching my head with a "scheduling while atomic" bug I started seeing on 3.6. I can ea

Re: alignment faults in 3.6

2012-10-04 Thread Rob Herring
On 10/04/2012 08:26 PM, Mans Rullgard wrote: > On 5 October 2012 01:58, Michael Hope wrote: >> On 5 October 2012 12:10, Rob Herring wrote: >>> I've been scratching my head with a "scheduling while atomic" bug I >>> started seeing on 3.6. I can easily reproduce this problem when doing a >>> wget o

Re: alignment faults in 3.6

2012-10-04 Thread Mans Rullgard
On 5 October 2012 01:58, Michael Hope wrote: > On 5 October 2012 12:10, Rob Herring wrote: >> I've been scratching my head with a "scheduling while atomic" bug I >> started seeing on 3.6. I can easily reproduce this problem when doing a >> wget on my system. It ultimately seems to be a combinatio

Re: alignment faults in 3.6

2012-10-04 Thread Michael Hope
On 5 October 2012 12:10, Rob Herring wrote: > I've been scratching my head with a "scheduling while atomic" bug I > started seeing on 3.6. I can easily reproduce this problem when doing a > wget on my system. It ultimately seems to be a combination of factors. > The "scheduling while atomic" bug i